Silly National Geographic!
So im cruisin' through the National Geographic for June 2006. Looks pretty sweet you know, it's about why the world loves FOOTBALL (not soccer dudes, anyways...) and that's kinda cool.
Once again, in the little editorials though, the guys writing it are complete retards. Im sorry, but it's kinda true.
Anyways, the first little thing that erks me is in the "Fossils" part "Did Dinosaurs Have Day Care?". I don't care about whether or not they did, could be, it doesn't change my life, but there are a few things in there that erk me.
Mainly, it is the constant repetition of rapid burial :" Nobody knows what buried them so quickly. Their den might have collapsed or flooded, or drifts of volcanic ash could have suffocated them", "died suddenly", ""The near perfect preservation shows that they were buried very rapidly""; and this coupled with "125 million years ago" and other old age BS, i mean fact.
Here, let me clue you guys in as to why they seemed to have been buried rapidly, i highlighted it: Flooded. A lightning quick flash flood of epic proportions. Wait, lemme expand that more: ain't it screwy that all fossils are ever found in sedimentary rock? I mean, it's obvious it would have been that way, but isn't it lucky that all the animals we can now see were stupid enough to drown/get owned by volcanic ash? How often does this actually happen? Because we see a load of fossils being uncovered, often very far spread apart, across the whole world, and it's just lucky that all these poor animals were stupid enough to drown. LUCKY! Whereas a flood on a global scale isn't a possibility. Nope.
The second thing that annoys me is 2 pages after in the "Science" part "Mighty Flighty". Without going into too much detail, it is an article about how incredibly versatile and manoeuverable the common house fly and hover flies are, how they own anything humans could ever make, and how their feats are simply unbelievable for things that have a brain smaller than a sesame seed. After this exposé on how incredible they are..."Given that flies have evolved for hundreds of millions of years (and that they were the first animals to take to the air), we shouldn't be surprised that they're such good fliers".
Oh wait im sorry, i thought you had just told us all about how complex and inguenous these things are. Oh no, they simply evolved to this state in a really long time, meaning that they kinda sucked at flying way back when. Good thing nothing existed to eat them right?
Yes, good thing that flies are so incredible at flying, and developped this after millions of years. Irreductible complexity much? Morons.
This isn't the first time either. here is my other beef:
Hmmmm
Once again, in the little editorials though, the guys writing it are complete retards. Im sorry, but it's kinda true.
Anyways, the first little thing that erks me is in the "Fossils" part "Did Dinosaurs Have Day Care?". I don't care about whether or not they did, could be, it doesn't change my life, but there are a few things in there that erk me.
Mainly, it is the constant repetition of rapid burial :" Nobody knows what buried them so quickly. Their den might have collapsed or flooded, or drifts of volcanic ash could have suffocated them", "died suddenly", ""The near perfect preservation shows that they were buried very rapidly""; and this coupled with "125 million years ago" and other old age BS, i mean fact.
Here, let me clue you guys in as to why they seemed to have been buried rapidly, i highlighted it: Flooded. A lightning quick flash flood of epic proportions. Wait, lemme expand that more: ain't it screwy that all fossils are ever found in sedimentary rock? I mean, it's obvious it would have been that way, but isn't it lucky that all the animals we can now see were stupid enough to drown/get owned by volcanic ash? How often does this actually happen? Because we see a load of fossils being uncovered, often very far spread apart, across the whole world, and it's just lucky that all these poor animals were stupid enough to drown. LUCKY! Whereas a flood on a global scale isn't a possibility. Nope.
The second thing that annoys me is 2 pages after in the "Science" part "Mighty Flighty". Without going into too much detail, it is an article about how incredibly versatile and manoeuverable the common house fly and hover flies are, how they own anything humans could ever make, and how their feats are simply unbelievable for things that have a brain smaller than a sesame seed. After this exposé on how incredible they are..."Given that flies have evolved for hundreds of millions of years (and that they were the first animals to take to the air), we shouldn't be surprised that they're such good fliers".
Oh wait im sorry, i thought you had just told us all about how complex and inguenous these things are. Oh no, they simply evolved to this state in a really long time, meaning that they kinda sucked at flying way back when. Good thing nothing existed to eat them right?
Yes, good thing that flies are so incredible at flying, and developped this after millions of years. Irreductible complexity much? Morons.
This isn't the first time either. here is my other beef:
Hmmmm
posted by Patty VonWebster at 1:40 PM
2 Comments:
Part 2. I don't really get what you're saying here, Patty. Are you in favour of irreducible complexity or not? Either way, last time I checked that whole counter-‘theory’ had been biologically disproven.
Now, I didn’t read this National Geographic article but here it goes: these house flies most likely evolved to the state they are at today. We see how organisms adapt to their environment all the time; we can trace their development; we can test their reactions and behaviour at different generations, what have you.
Say they were pretty sucky flies back then, ok, - there are at least 10 other factors which would have (and clearly did) ensure their survival in spite of this. Maybe - and most logically - the birds that hunted them were less developed as well, thereby creating a nice balance in nature. Or maybe habitat, temperate or whatever other factor prevented the predators from gobbling up all these flies. In other words, the survival of a species is not solely dependent on its biological composition, but on external factors.
There are millions of retarded organisms that obviously seem to survive and flourish without greater intelligence or complexity. I’m sure you can think of a few humans here, too. I sure can. I’ll use snails as an example – you’d have to be pretty unskilled to fail to catch a snail. Yet, there is a crapload of snails in the world.
Lastly, in response to your dying frogs entry… it’s somewhat hyprocritical.
I know you’re Christian so you probably believe in “God’s Plan”. In other words, god has a plan for every organism out there and he works in mysterious ways so some organisms die and others don’t and we shouldn’t question it. So why should Christians help other animals when that interferes with His plan?
Natural selection and Christianity alike, we can still show some respect or consideration for other creatures. Then, come what may, I suppose.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chapter7.asp
por exemple
Post a Comment
<< Home